Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Stocks Rebound After Trump Delays Auto Tariffs, Talks With Trudeau; White House Blasts Democrats As "Party Of Insanity" After Trump Speech; Supreme Court Rejects Trump's Request To Keep Foreign Aid Frozen; Trump Pauses Military and Intelligence Sharing With Ukraine. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired March 05, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: -- size of an elephant.
[16:00:01]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: I feel like we could use that ability to grow their hair really long for myself. I'd like to have, like, long blond hair like that. I also --
KEILAR: Oh, my god, I would die. I would love it if you had hair like that.
SANCHEZ: Yeah. However, with all the things going on in the world right now, do we really need wooly mammoths back?
KEILAR: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Some of these other extinct creatures --
KEILAR: Is that a controversial position? Yes, we do need them back. They were fantastic.
SANCHEZ: I feel like we've got so many other problems.
Hey, thank you so much for joining us this afternoon.
Brianna, always a pleasure.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's checks versus balances.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
This hour, can the markets put the brakes on the president's trade war after a day of dizzying developments involving his push for tariffs?
And if the markets can't slow Trump down, what, if anything, can?
Maybe it's Democrats. They used signs, walkouts and heckling to protest Trump's address to Congress. Is that the resistance? I'll ask the party's 2024 vice presidential nominee, Governor Tim Walz.
And, the Supreme Court delivers a new setback to the president, refusing to give him a green light to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid frozen.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Wednesday.
As we come on the air, of course, as usual, right at the market, close, stock prices have rebounded following two days of big losses. This shortly after President Trump spoke by phone with the Canadian prime minister about their ongoing trade war. That's a call that Trump said ended in a, quote, somewhat friendly manner.
This just hours after President Trump concluded the longest joint address in history, where he presented himself as all but unstoppable.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years, and we are just getting started.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So what could stand in President Trump's way? He has been known to care deeply about the stock market. And today, Trump did agree to pause auto industry tariffs on Canada and Mexico for one month. So maybe the market is checking him a little bit.
Also today, news from the Supreme Court, just hours after some justices attended Trump's speech, the high court stopped something he wants. They ruled President Trump can't keep billions in foreign aid frozen. So far, Trump has not moved to defy the Supreme Court. But in the past, his own vice president has suggested that Trump could perhaps do that.
So that brings us to Democrats. They all seem to agree that Trump should be stopped, but they don't agree on how to do it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Remove this gentleman from the chamber.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: House Democratic leaders had warned their members not to do what you saw there. Congressman Al Green went ahead and did that.
A CNN instant poll of people who watched Trump's speech found that 80 percent of them thought that that was inappropriate. The White House went further this afternoon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Last night was a very clarifying moment for our country. The Democrats exposed themselves as the party of insanity and hate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And by now, you've seen what other Democrats did on the floor. There were signs like these: Save Medicaid, Musk steals, no kings live here, or simply false.
So, is that the way to stop Trump?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT: The man barked out one appalling claim after another. But don't you worry, the Democrats came ready to fight back with their little addles, okay? That is how you save democracy, by quietly dissenting, or bidding on an antique tea set. It was hard to tell what was going on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. We have a great panel joining us today. CNN's political director David Chalian, former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams is here, and two of our CNN political commentators, Xochitl Hinojosa, the former advisor and comms director to the DNC, and Scott Jennings, former political director for Mitch McConnell.
Thank you all for being here. We are going to have to hold that thought, though, because we are able to start with Minnesota governor and the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee, Tim Walz.
Governor Walz, thank you so much for being with us.
GOV. TIM WALZ (D), MINNESOTA: Hi, Kasie. Thanks for having me.
HUNT: So, Governor, you just heard there what the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said about the Democratic Party after the speech last night. And I would note that you yourself said ahead of hearing Trump's speech that we Democrats need to be more aggressive.
Was -- what you saw last night, what you were talking about, did they do the right thing?
WALZ: Well, look, you know, I served in Congress and I attended all of the joint sessions whether I agreed or not. But that was a different time. That -- that was an unprecedented speech that that said nothing about helping the American public. And it was -- it was about grievances. It was about slurs towards United States senators.
And so I have to be honest on that. I'm not sure I would have said around there. But what I'm doing out here is, is I guarantee you, those folks who --
HUNT: Would you have walked out, sir?
WALZ: -- of that speech.
HUNT: Is that what you're saying?
WALZ: I just don't think I would have probably, I -- yeah, maybe, maybe. I don't know. Not having been there. I'm out here trying to make the case of what we can do better.
But look, that that did nothing to further the country. It did nothing to lay out policies that are going to improve lives. It did nothing to try and bring this country together.
The idea of a president standing at that rostrum and -- and throwing a slur at a United States senator in the middle, because you disagree on policy is absolutely ridiculous.
So I think the issue here is the American public knows that they can think they're cheering in there, but they're not -- they're not interested in going back and holding their town halls. When people are saying, why are these -- these tariffs are going to destroy us in farm country, why are you putting these on? Why are you firing 80,000 people at the V.A. when it's difficult to get an appointment and get in?
We have those responsibilities. So it -- look, it was what I expected. It was reality TV. It was for consumption. For those, you know, the folks who are going to line up there, the Republican senators and House members who I'm deeply disappointed in not speaking up. They know that's not the right thing to do, and they know there were no policies there that really make a difference. So, yeah, frustrating.
HUNT: Sir, Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, of course a Democrat. But it's a state that Donald Trump won. He beat the Harris- Walz ticket. He posted this on twitter today.
He called last night the Democratic -- what happened with Democrats last night, a sad cavalcade of self-owned and unhinged petulance. And he said it only makes Trump look more presidential and restrained.
And he says we're becoming the metaphorical car alarms that nobody pays attention to. And it may not be the winning message.
What do you say to that?
WALZ: Well, I totally disagree with it. Did Senator Fetterman listen to the speech? Did he listen to the unhinged nature of the things that were being put out? The -- I don't know, the count stopped at 60 of falsehoods, misrepresenting and cheering an unelected, richest man in the world as he decimates the V.A. system.
So, look, I'm friends with Senator Fetterman. We've met on several occasions. I couldn't disagree with him more.
And the decorum that that used to be there -- this false reporting, you've been there, Kasie. Many of your panel members have been there to watch Joe Wilson yell "you lie" at Barack Obama or everything else that's happened.
So the focus here is on Donald Trump's misplaced policies that aren't improving the lives of Minnesotans and members of every state. And I think, look, Donald Trump may have won the vote. It doesn't mean that his policies right now, people didn't vote for chaos. They didn't vote to pick a trade war with our closest allies.
They didn't vote to fire doctors at the V.A. -- so, yeah, maybe, you know, I guess if you're going to focus back where the vote was, what I'm talking about now is prices aren't coming down. There's no plan to address those. We're in trade wars with our closest allies.
He's destabilizing Europe and picking fights. And for the first time in history, the United States stood at the U.N. with North Korea, Russia and the United States. That's where the embarrassment is.
I wouldn't worry about Democrats holding up a sign, and I wouldn't worry about Al Green trying to use freedom of speech. I would worry about what Donald Trump is destroying in this country. And so that's what we're focused on out here.
HUNT: So, Governor, one thing I keep turning over in my head about this is there does seem to be a very real frustration among the Democratic base. Now, some of them probably were cheering what they saw last night, but they still feel like what they are seeing from the Democratic Party is ineffective, that it was ineffective in the last campaign. It's ineffective now that the brand is broken, that there needs to be, you know, generational change here to the point that some and, you know, your colleague J.B. Pritzker of Illinois alluded to something like this.
When we saw the tea party rise in 2010, it was --
WALZ: Yeah.
HUNT: -- people who were angry at their own Republican Party. Is something similar going on with Democrats? Are they going to be angry at you and those of you who are in power, about what you're failing to do, in their view about Donald Trump?
WALZ: Yeah. Well, I would say the Tea Party was also angry about the ACA. They were also angry about Barack Obama being president.
But that being said, look, I don't disagree with this, that whatever it is, and I own responsibility for this, that we are the party of the working class. We are the party of labor unions. We are the party of supporting public schools, of good roads, of good schools, of clean water.
But that fell on deaf ears of folks who decided there wasn't enough difference between the two, and they decided to side with Donald Trump, who is now gutting all the things that they hold most dear. Fighting fights with our closest allies and making life more expensive and more difficult for them.
So I think, yes, we need to realize that the message of being with the middle class, they're not all -- there's a lot of folks out there, and those who stayed home from voting, we need to make sure our message is getting to them. We need to stay focused on these. Tariffs aren't working.
In Minnesota, we're focusing on things like paid family and medical leave. At the same time, R&D tax credits to have business growth. And what we're seeing is middle class rising. We're seeing better achievement in our schools and we're seeing more people covered with health care.
So I think the Democratic Party, yes, our policies, people like. But --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Do you really think people are giving you guys credit for that?
WALZ: -- Trump.
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, and that's fundamentally it, right?
WALZ: For those policies?
HUNT: Yeah.
WALZ: Oh, no, I don't think they are. No, I agree. I don't -- I think, you know, Donald Trump would say that those are things that he would do. And anytime he gets in trouble he tries to take credit for those things know that they want to voucherize public schools. We've seen it around the country. Governors who try and do that.
When I was growing up, it was very clear that there was one party that stood with the wealthy, and there was one party that stood with the working class.
I didn't choose to become a Democrat. They came to me. Social Security survivor benefits the G.I. bill, and I think were in that mode again where we need to define ourselves. But the public is, yes, they're angry.
But let's be very clear. The Republicans have the ability here to make things that improve people's lives, and they are choosing to side with the wealthy. They are choosing to decide tax cuts for the wealthy.
Instead of trying to fix Social Security, they call it a Ponzi scheme.
HUNT: Sir --
WALZ: And I'm just going to say this, 80,000 V.A. employees. That is an outrage.
HUNT: Sir, who do you think the leader of the Democratic Party is right now?
WALZ: I think the voting public right now is what I would say, and I keep telling that. We're not going to have a charismatic leader right in here and save us from this. And I would argue that the Tea Party, as it arose out of the ACA -- well, where was that charismatic leaders, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, and a whole bunch of angry folks at town halls that had members of Congress like myself answering questions.
So when people are looking around, where's the leaders or whatever, they are going to organically step up? And what I said, our job is of people who do have power to enact things, we damn sure better be doing it.
HUNT: Yeah --
WALZ: And we better be out there standing alongside them.
HUNT: The one --
WALZ: That's what we need to do.
HUNT: The one thing I would offer you that, sir, is, I mean, I take your point about congressional leaders. Mitt Romney had lost in 2012, but I interviewed Donald Trump in Iowa in 2013, right? There was someone there was a Republican on the stage who would then go on to dominate our politics for ten years.
Do you see anyone who could be a national Democratic figure? I mean --
WALZ: Yeah, I see -- I --
HUNT: Go ahead.
WALZ: I see a whole lot of them, and I see people out there articulating. I see young members of Congress stepping up. I see folks that are out there. I see it out here, state senators, state legislators, folks that are getting ready, labor union members who are out there talking.
So I think the thing we need to do is we can't cede the space. If Donald Trump's going to be out there, and then Senator Slotkin gives her response, we have to be there every day because this guy is a master of continuing to just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, and then we take the bait on it.
So I would argue this we need to be better organized. There is going to be an organic uprising, which we're seeing out of folks, and many of those are independents at these Republican town halls. But there's Democrats saying, where the hell is the leadership, folks are doing that. Those of us who have this power and I think governors, just to be candid, and I'm certainly biased about it, we have a lot of power.
I'm going to get on the phone right now after I get off this, and I'm going to be talking to the premiers of Manitoba and Ontario, and we're going to figure out what we can do that's in our power at the sub federal level to make a difference. Those are the things we should be doing. Those are what leaders across the country should be doing. And as I pledged yesterday, if these Republicans are too afraid to go
out there and tell people how great it is to fire V.A. employees, I'll go with -- I'll go with members out there. I'll go with people to let them speak.
The public wants to speak, and I'll guarantee you that it is a lot of independents, and it's a lot of folks who are saying, who's going to stand with us? Which party stands with us? Because what they're figuring out right now is it's sure the hell isn't Donald Trump with firing V.A. employees. But are the Democrats going to stand up? That's a question we need to answer.
HUNT: Is Kamala Harris a future leader for the Democratic Party?
WALZ: Well, I certainly think she could be. There'll be decisions to be, like I say, all of us --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Do you think she should run for president?
WALZ: -- is not by our choice.
If that's something that she should do, I think she had a positive message.
[16:15:01]
I think I own this with her. Were we able to deliver that? Obviously not. Not as effective as we should have.
But I think the idea is that she was bringing up about an economy that works for everyone, expanding the idea of health care and affordability, making sure that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security were protected. She shares the values of the bulk of the American public in 100 days. I think she was articulating that.
If that's a choice she needs to make, here's what I'm saying --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Are you going to run for president? I know you talked to David Remnick about this. Are you going to run?
WALZ: Yeah, I talked to David for 45 minutes and it was like five seconds worth. And here's what I said is, is I will do -- I don't need to be on the ticket, but I do need to be there, I believe, because what I saw in the country and what were able to do is I want to be a part of making sure that we win, not because I want to see a Democrat win. It's because I believe the V.A. is important. It's because I believe Social Security is important. It's because I believe climate change.
So I'm out there. Whatever they need from me, ill go wherever they are. But that's -- at this point in time. I'm governor of Minnesota, but I hear the public, we need to take the fight to every corner of the country.
HUNT: Sir, I have one last question before I let you go. And that's actually about something in your home state. That Target has now been the subject of boycotts for choosing to end their DEI policies. Is Target doing the right thing?
WALZ: Well, look, I'm not the CEO of Target. We're proud of our Minnesota companies. We're home to a lot of Fortune 500.
And what I've said about this is I just went out and spoke to a group, and they were focused on DEI, and that's our deaf community. It's about inclusion. It's about making sure we have Braille access to state -- you know, state resources.
So I think we as Democrats need to do a better job of when were talking about this inclusion. And I think if it just becomes a blanket policy, either for or against DEI, you get yourself caught in these situations.
And what I do know is more and more Americans are speaking with their dollars and that matters. So I think you need to pay attention to it. If you stand on something and it's a value, stay with it.
HUNT: All right. Governor Tim Walz, the, of course, 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee -- sir, I'm so grateful to have you here in the arena. I really hope you'll come back soon.
WALZ: I -- certainly, thank you.
HUNT: Thanks very much.
WALZ: All right. Our panel is here.
David Chalian, your reaction?
DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: You know, valiant effort in a just a terrible situation that the Democrats find themselves in.
It sucks when you're the party out of power and you have no levers of power in Washington, and you're not in the midst of a presidential contest where leadership emerges, gets tested and introduced to the American people. And so we've seen this happen to both parties over time, but they are in the doldrums right now. Democrats are.
And so there's little Tim Walz is going to be able to say of like having the solution here on out. The political environment change, we'll go through these midterm elections. There will be a competitive primary on probably on both sides of the aisle.
And leadership options will emerge for the American people, but they're going to have to like trudge through as Democrats this moment in time where Republicans control every lever of power in Washington.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Walz has no idea what happened last night because he has always been and remains in over his head. He's a fringe partisan. He sees the world through the tired old politics that failed last year. This class warfare message, it doesn't work.
Look what happened in the speech, 74 percent of Americans said it was presidential, 74 percent entertaining, 71 percent inspiring.
HUNT: These are people who watched the speech.
JENNINGS: Sixty-two percent unifying; 46 percent said divisive, which was how the Democrats wanted to describe it. They don't know what --
HUNT: It's going to be skewed, though, right? Because its people that watch the speech. So that's going to be more Republican.
JENNINGS: Okay.
HUNT: I'm not saying -- I mean, our 80 percent number that we showed David talked about it last night. It's about 14 percent more Republican than usual. So that still puts it at a big disapproved number. But I just want to caveat what you're saying.
Continue.
JENNINGS: Listen, the reality is Donald Trump had a perfectly good night because he articulates issues that the vast majority of the American people are basically in alignment with. And the Democrats had a terrible night because they acted like children, just like Fetterman said.
I was interested to see Walz attack Fetterman, the 2028 Democratic primary for president, is obviously on. And if that's the best -- and if that's the best they have to offer, I mean, look who are -- I don't know who. I don't know who the leader of the Democratic Party is, but I know who runs it, Donald Trump, he runs both parties.
HUNT: Xochitl, what say you?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So just correct a few things on Trump's speech, first of all --
JENNINGS: Correct?
HINOJOSA: Correct. Yes. He never mentioned veterans, but he mentioned Elon Musk three times. That just shows where his priorities are.
There are 13 mentions of Joe Biden and five mention of jobs. That just shows you how divisive the speech was.
Now, when it comes to Democrats, I agree the response was less than ideal. Senator Slotkin did an amazing job. It was one of the best responses I had seen, but I think the outbursts from Al Green, who I absolutely love as a Texan, the outburst and the signs and the walking out and all of that -- it was an embarrassment. And that's not what we should be doing as a party.
[16:20:02]
I think the question about who's the leader of the Democratic Party, I went through this last time Trump was president. I was at the DNC. We had to, you know, figure out a response to that.
The reality is Democrats need to stop falling for this. We need to stop talking about politicians that are the head of the Democratic Party. And instead, I would have loved to see Democrats last night put forward a veteran who is now unemployed and laid off by Elon Musk, deliver the response, instead of a politician.
I think Democrats need to go into these frontline Republican districts and they need to start running ads about every single person who lost their job. The single mom who can't afford eggs.
All of those stories. Trump has had great impact on our economy and on people across the country. And Democrats need to stop focusing on themselves and need to start focusing on those stories.
HUNT: I do want to take a second because we've -- we've talked about, obviously, the approach that we saw from members who were in the chamber who were on the floor. I want to play a little bit of Elissa Slotkin's response. Senator Slotkin's response, because it was markedly different, Elliot, in tone and tenor and even just the very beginning where she's describing where she's standing, because I think it struck me because it really, in our divided politics, can be difficult to remember, that places like this do exist, which is the point that she made.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): It's a working class town just south of Detroit. President Trump and I both won here in November. It might not seem like it, but plenty of places like this still exist across the United States, places where people believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should do well and your kids should do better.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, Elliot, the way that she put that there -- I mean, it has struck me throughout the last election year and into the beginning of this administration, that that is exactly what has been broken about America. That is what people in the wake of COVID are saying to their politicians that this fundamental promise that was America is now broken and they want someone to fix it.
Her approach seems to be we need to talk to the people who voted for Donald Trump and convinced them that they have it right, and instead of doing what people did on the floor.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah. And unfortunately, she's an outlier within her party, at least right now. What's remarkable -- you know, it's funny, Dave was saying earlier that one of the worst jobs in Washington is being in the minority party when you don't have the power. The second worst job in Washington is giving the response to the State of the Union, because --
HUNT: It's usually a total fail. WILLIAMS: -- it's usually a total failure.
Now, you know, she gave a wonderful speech, but its drowned out by the antics of some of her colleagues. And what's remarkable and lost in this whole conversation is that the president has about a 46, 48 percent approval rating right now.
JENNINGS: A little higher.
WILLIAMS: Scott, okay, it's -- it's --
JENNINGS: I know, I hear a lot a lot of coke, but it's a little higher.
WILLIAMS: Scott, it's a -- it's a --
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: It's -- we can agree that it is a very closely divided country. And perhaps the president's numbers are underwater. We know that the president won by 1.5 percent. What I'm saying is its close and they have, you know, let that message get away. But what the clowny stuff and I -- you and I agree on that point, even if we disagree on the numbers.
HUNT: All right. Well, we are going to have plenty of time for the rest of the show to disagree on various things. So do stand by for me.
Right now, I want to know what are you hearing to all my sources and friends around town. You all know who you are. Do check your inboxes.
Here's our question for today. How much leeway will voters give President Trump when it comes to the economy? Get to the bottom of the hour. Send us your thoughts, tips, exclusives if it's the wrong question, if we've been totally wrong in this conversation on the panel, tell us what it is.
Viewers, we will let you in on our conversation coming up later on in the hour.
Up next here, the Supreme Court is not coming to President Trump's aid when it comes to foreign aid. Inside the decision that handed the president another loss.
Plus, going dark for now, the U.S. signaling they might restart intelligence sharing with Ukraine after they abruptly cut it off.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:28:18]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALMA ALIAJ, FORMER USAID EMPLOYEE: We didn't need the Supreme Court to come and tell us that when you have bills due for work that's already been done, you pay those bills. I think every American can probably answer that question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was a USAID employee who was fired by DOGE reacting to this morning's Supreme Court ruling that rejected President Trump's bid to keep billions in foreign aid frozen.
This is the second time this term the Supreme Court has stood in the way of Trump's plans to reshape the government. Perhaps Trump, rethinking this moment from last night, where he seemed to thank the chief justice, John Roberts, quite an interesting moment to watch there.
Roberts today sided with the three liberal justices and with conservative Amy Coney Barrett in today's 5-4 decision.
Our panel is back.
David Chalian, in an interesting moment there with John Roberts that President Trump had. What did you make of that?
CHALIAN: I don't know what to make of it. I would love to know what he was thanking him for. Like for the inauguration.
HINOJOSA: Obviously immunity.
CHALIAN: Like we don't know.
JENNINGS: How about being there tonight?
CHALIAN: Or being there tonight.
JENNINGS: And showing the courtesy to the president that the Democrats got.
HINOJOSA: That's not what you just said.
CHALIAN: I just said, we don't know. You don't know either.
HUNT: Also, like Alito and Thomas didn't show up. Okay. This is not -- sometimes, they go. Sometimes, they don't.
CHALIAN: But something that leaves it open for interpretation. There's no --
JENNINGS: Get a dinner reservation in Washington last night at any restaurant you want.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Scott Jennings, what do you make of this conservative court doing this?
JENNINGS: Okay, I generally like six of these people. I do not like this ruling. I, I respect the Supreme Courts decision. I do not care for this. I do not like the idea that an individual district court judge can
compel the executive branch to spend $2 billion. I don't like the concept of that. I think that's going to have ramifications. I thought the dissent was appropriately apoplectic.
So, you know, I guess we'll have to live with it. But we don't have to like it.
HUNT: Elliot, this, of course, raises the question in the context of Donald Trump about defying the courts. We've had one judge say his order had been defied. And then I want to remind everyone what J.D. Vance said about this.
Now, this was, of course, back in 2021 when he was in a different position in his life than he is now. Now he's the vice president of United States. But here's what he said then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that what Trump should do, like if I was giving him one piece of advice, fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people. And when the courts, because you will get taken to court, and when the courts stop, you stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say the chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Now, let him enforce it, he says.
WILLIAMS: Right now, again, as we were talking about before this, that quote actually wasn't said by Andrew Jackson, but the underlying sentiment holds. It's -- look, I -- the reason why the country has a nonpartisan, apolitical civil service is to traverse administrations from Republican to Democratic. We have political leadership that runs and manages agencies and nonpolitical folks below that.
This idea that, you know, its putting more chum in the water about this deep state concept that just, I think, corrosive to our government. And yes, he was a private citizen at that point. He was not vice president of the United States, but it was a dangerous set of comments.
HINOJOSA: Absolutely. I think that if you have Donald Trump and the Trump administration defying the courts and Pam Bondi and others okay with it --
HUNT: Which to be clear, we have not seen them defy the Supreme Court yet.
HINOJOSA: We have not seen that.
HUNT: We're talking about a hypothetical.
HINOJOSA: My hope is, I do think that that is the end of the rule of law as you know it. But I also think there would be mass resignations at the Department of Justice. I mean, that is just not -- that you can take policy.
HUNT: And you're speaking from a place of knowing this.
HINOJOSA: Yes.
HUNT: For our viewers who are unaware of your background, you worked there for many years.
HINOJOSA: I was a spokesperson --
HUNT: Under Democratic administration.
HINOJOSA: -- just a month and a half ago, and knowing the career civil servants in the Justice Department, they are not anti-Trump. They are not anti-Pam Bondi as she likes to say. They serve under Republican and Democratic administrations.
They are there to enforce the law. They might -- they have to go and defend Trump's policies, even though if maybe if they agree with them or they don't agree with them, they check their politics at the door. They defend Trump's policies.
But if you defy a court order, then I think that you will have mass resignations.
JENNINGS: I don't think they're going to defy the Supreme Court. I mean, this is where these things should be resolved. That's what the Supreme Court exists for. I -- again, I don't like this ruling. I do quibble with your idea that the bureaucracy is nonpartisan and apolitical.
I mean, Kamala Harris got 93 percent of the vote here in Washington state. The bureaucracy, the bureaucracy resists Republicans, the bureaucracy resists Republicans. You and I both know it. It's okay to say it.
WILLIAMS: Scott, people, as an exercise of their First Amendment rights, can vote for whomever they wish to vote for. Now, does the hiring process, is the hiring process apolitical? Yes. There is a civil service hiring process that exists completely independently of the appointment of political leadership. You know that. I know that. We both worked in government for a long time.
And so this idea that, A, either merely voting for Kamala Harris, or B, even being a registered Democrat or Republican, somehow taints and impairs someone's ability to carry out their jobs, like the many Democrats and Republicans I worked with as a prosecutor, it's just -- it's simply false.
CHALIAN: Can I just speak to the politics of this Supreme Court decision today? Because watching Roberts and Coney Barrett, one of whom Trump appointed to the court, is going to be something we are all going to be doing throughout this entire administration, in every ruling that comes down. How those two justices position themselves on things that will come before them from this administration, that is the ball game to watch.
HUNT: Especially knowing how conservative she was when she was chosen, it's remarkable.
WILLIAMS: And when you're not talking about abortion, the death penalty and sort of some of these social issues, a lot of these executive power questions make very strange bedfellows in the law. And I think they're going to surprise you over the years.
JENNINGS: I worked on both confirmations, Roberts and Alito, going two different directions on this. That dissent was pretty wild. And conservatives, conservatives are really --
WILLIAMS: Both proud -- and both proud Republicans beforehand.
HUNT: Wasn't David Souter appointed by a Republican president? Oh, let's remember that.
All right. Up next, the U.S. and Ukraine agreeing today to another meeting on ending Russia's war. Is it going to go better than the last one did?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:38:55]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE WALTZ, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: I think if we can nail down these negotiations and move towards these negotiations and in fact, put some confidence building measures on the table, then the president will take a hard look at lifting this pause.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: No aid, no intelligence sharing. The Trump administration has cut Ukraine off from essential assistance because they haven't been cooperating with the president, most likely to Vladimir Putin's delight. And as you just heard from national security advisor Mike Waltz, this can all be undone if Trump does feel like progress is being made with Ukraine.
But when might that be?
Last night, Trump said he had received an important letter from Zelenskyy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The letter reads: Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer. Nobody wants peace more than the Ukrainians, he said. My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump's strong leadership, to get a peace that lasts.
(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: Zelenskyy, seemingly learning the lesson that other foreign leaders have learned and playing to President Trump's ego there to restore relations.
[16:40:05]
In his nightly address today, President Zelenskyy said that they're working on another meeting with U.S. officials in the near future and that there is, quote, positive progress.
Scott Jennings, that paper that you have brought to our set today, the editorial board, if you flip it open, is actually focused on on this question about Zelenskyy and what Trump should do. And I think it's worth noting, he spent very little time on this last night. We saw almost all of what he said.
But here's what the editorial board says. Quote, if the Russians want a ceasefire, it's to take a breather, rearm and await the next invasion opportunity. No doubt Mr. Trump views this as a bitter truth, but his own political fortunes are tied up with Ukraine's fate. If Ukraine fails -- falls to Russia, Mr. Trump will own what would be his version of Joe Biden's Afghanistan.
Is that right?
JENNINGS: Look, I -- no one wants Ukraine to fall to the Russians. The American people support the Ukrainians. They know who the bad guys are here, who the aggressor is. That's clear. That's number one.
Number two, I actually thought it was noteworthy and important that Donald Trump read Zelenskyy's letter as part of his speech last night. He got this letter -- by the way, what the lesson Zelenskyy learned was stop taking advice from Senate Democrats about how to deal with Donald Trump.
Now he's back on track. He was on the right message. He sends the correct tone to Donald Trump. And now we can have negotiations.
I thought Trump didn't react to it, but it was noteworthy that he decided to put it out there for the American people to see, he said. He's also talking to the Russians.
The reality is there's never going to be a moment where Vladimir Putin waves a white flag and runs back and says, I lost and we don't want Ukraine to lose. You have to come up with a solution that they both can live with. That's the situation he's in.
CHALIAN: Yeah. I mean, what I am finding difficult to parse through sort of hour by hour. You played Mike Waltz, national security advisor, said, you know, were at the ready to pull this back. So you have the -- what is being done for leverage and negotiation to get everyone to the table.
HUNT: The art of the deal.
CHALIAN: You have cheerleaders who want this back on track. So like, you know, Lindsey Graham, who was sent out after the blowup meeting in the Oval Office last week and to support the president, you hear him trying to cheer it. I think the tone is right. Lets get this back on track.
What's not clear to me is, is it fully back on track, or is everyone in a cheerleading mode to try and get it back on track? And I think we have to wait to see where we are on that.
WILLIAMS: And my only question remains, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, too, Scott, is how do we feel as a country about the fact that the Kremlin seems very excited about what's happening in the United -- no, it's a serious question.
JENNINGS: It's a good question. But they just say -- they say things to scramble our politics. Haven't we learned that lesson? They say things to scramble our politics. Trump inherited this situation.
HUNT: Well, Trump seems to think, actually, that the Russians had nothing to do with anything in the election. I mean --
JENNINGS: Look, he's trying to get to a place where both leaders of both countries can reasonably go home and end this, period, and the political will to continue funding an open ended conflict is draining rapidly. It is highly unlikely that Congress will ever appropriate another dollar. Peace has to come sooner than that moment.
HINOJOSA: The problem, though, is that Trump, pausing intelligence to Ukraine has major repercussions on the battlefield. What will end up happening is Ukraine is not getting critical intelligence about Russia's movements, their actions, anything that could be coming forward. And that's devastating to Ukraine. And that is just seen as a move, and I think that whether it is the Oval Office meeting, whether it is the action to pause intelligence to Ukraine, all of those things only help Russia. It doesn't help America. It doesn't help Ukraine.
And so, I think that Trump really needs to think about what he's doing here and how -- what -- how it benefits America.
JENNINGS: Well, what would benefit America? And the whole world is for the war to end and the killing to stop. And I think that's what the American people want to see happen.
HINOJOSA: He hasn't done it yet. He promised he would do it on day one. And unfortunately, he has not.
HUNT: There have been a lot of things promised on day one. We're going to keep talking about them as they come up.
But coming up next here, what you're telling us in response to our question of just how much leeway voters will give President Trump on the economy? We've got quite a few interesting responses from all of you. We'll bring that to you next.
Plus, on a totally different note, what LeBron James did last night that's making headlines.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:42]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back. Markets have been stabilizing this afternoon amid the news that President Trump is pausing auto industry tariffs on Canada and Mexico. For one month, his plans for reciprocal tariffs are still set to go into effect on April 2nd, though.
Earlier we asked all of our sources and friends around town, what are you hearing? Here was the question I posed to them. How much leeway will voters give President Trump with the economy?
Here's a little bit of what some of you all had to say. One Midwestern Democratic lawmaker wrote this. Trump has focused on the culture war, political grievance crap. It's not what matters to most people. People are pissed.
A Republican campaign strategist wrote: Trump was elected because people wanted to fix the economy, keep us out of World War III and reduce crime. Unless these things happen, Republicans will get slaughtered in four years.
People understand it doesn't happen overnight, but it must happen within a few months to a year.
And this is a reflection, David Chalian, of some of the other responses that we got as well. Another Republican operative wrote in and said that Trump's own voters are going to give him as much leeway as he needs. But it's really with the independents where patients will be limited. And that's going to depend in no small part on whether Democrats develop a message of cohesion.
[16:50:00]
CHALIAN: I agree with that. I think that that will depend on that.
And he's -- we should just note -- six weeks into the presidency. He's now working from a deficit with independent voters. So it puts that much more pressure to address the economy in a positive fashion for that, you know, broad middle swath of the electorate. And that is going to be a key political mission.
Now, I spend all my time as a political observer and journalist looking for how presidents broaden their appeal. What are they doing when they have huge moments to broaden their appeal and broaden their base of support?
And, you know, I think Donald Trump in his first term, and I think in these six weeks so far, has not made that mission critical for him. Nothing that he's doing to me suggests yet that there's a mission to try and really broaden that appeal. I'm not saying that his base politics play cant work for him. I'm just saying it limits how much support he's going to have at the end of the day.
WILLIAMS: What's remarkable -- this is a point that she made earlier in the program. How many times he mentioned Joe Biden last night, and I wish I had a word count, but it was within minutes the first time he did.
At a certain point, that leeway, that ability to keep looking backward runs out. I don't know if it's today, tomorrow or three months from now, six months from now or the midterms, but whatever it is, at a certain point, constantly blaming Joe Biden for the country's failures just has to run out.
HUNT: Well, and of course, one example of them, of Trump's team blaming former President Biden is, of course, the price of eggs, which they point to the fact that bird flu meant that many, many chickens were killed.
I want to play for you what the agricultural secretary suggested as a possible solution. In the meantime, again, they're blaming Joe Biden while they say that Trump is going to try to fix this.
But here's what they said. You could -- you could do right now. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BROOKE ROLLINS, U.S. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE: I think the silver lining in all of this is how do we in our backyards, we've got chickens in our backyard. How do we solve for something like this? And -- and people are sort of looking around thinking, wow, well, maybe I could get a chicken in my backyard. And it's awesome.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, so you know who's got chickens in his backyard?
JENNINGS: Sage advice.
HUNT: Scott Jennings.
JENNINGS: From the egg.
HUNT: I think we have a picture. It's on the wall over there. Let's see if we can put it up on -- on the screen for all the viewers to see of you with your chicken.
I don't know what this chickens name is. Maybe you do.
JENNINGS: Never name the chickens.
HUNT: Oh, that's -- that's sad.
JENNINGS: Well --
HUNT: Seriously, is this realistic? Like, is this a realistic solution? Like, I mean, it's -- or is it a little bit out of touch with -- I mean, you know, there's a lot of people who, you know, have no backyard to put a chicken in, for example.
JENNINGS: That's true. Well, first of all, I would highly recommend this hobby to anybody. It's been the most fulfilling and worthwhile thing. I started with six. I now have 35. HUNT: You have 35 chickens.
JENNINGS: And I'm like the Pablo Escobar of my neighborhood.
WILLIAMS: Oh my god.
JENNINGS: It's outrageous the amount of eggs I get every single day. Everybody come over at once. But --
HUNT: I did hear you sometimes bring them here to CNN and share them.
JENNINGS: I have brought eggs here.
Look, I think she was making light of the idea that backyard chicken farming is taking off. But what is true is that we killed millions upon millions upon millions of chickens, which is why egg prices are high today.
I -- what I hope is that the Agriculture Department looks at this chicken culling policy. I think we may have killed too many, but if you want to know why the egg prices are high, it's not because of what anything Donald Trump has done. Its just we killed all the chickens that lay all the eggs.
Now, not a problem at my house. My chickens are in a very nice secluded backyard area. They're not interacting with any other infected animals. Well-taken care of, well-fed.
WILLIAMS: You're really defensive about the lack of --
HINOJOSA: I disagree with him on a lot of things, but I'm not going to go after the chickens because I received about a dozen eggs from Scott and my daughter, who loves them.
HUNT: He can be bipartisan.
HINOJOSA: Yes, he is bipartisan. So our household loves the Jennings chicken.
JENNINGS: That's how many we make. I had to give some to Xochitl.
(LAUGHTER)
HINOJOSA: But I -- but what I -- what I, you know, want to point out what David was saying earlier just about expanding who he is talking to, Americans in every poll. It shows that they don't believe that he is addressing the economy enough. And I think that the speech last night mentioning jobs just a handful of times, really not talking about a plan to lower costs in any way. It's something that is just if he continues on that path, it not only hurts him, but it hurts Republicans down ballot and Democrats should be taking advantage of that and try to fill the void and talk to Americans about their plans for jobs.
JENNINGS: Just a quick rebuttal. I do think what the Congress is doing now, working on the reconciliation bill is vital to whether Trump is able to fully implement his economic vision. It's to make permanent the tax cuts, changes they make to energy policy a lot -- health care changes, whatever. All of this is going to be wrapped up in legislation that has yet to be produced.
And, you know, he needs the Republicans to come along. We got thin margins. But if he's going to fully implement his plan, they got to help him.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, some proof that you can get better with age, or at least a GOAT can. We'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:59:36]
MADDOW: He is 40 years old and he is breaking basketball records.
I'm sorry. What? I would be, am -- I am. I am not yet 40 and I am way too old for this. This was the moment that LeBron James hit a three to become the first in the history of the league to score 50,000 career regular and postseason points. This is just the latest, of course, in James's completely dominant career.
Okay, so the guy on the left is 20-year-old LeBron. He averaged 27 points a game. The guy on the right, 40-year-old LeBron. He is currently averaging 25 points per game.
When asked about his latest milestone, King James simply replied, I'm not going to sugarcoat it. It is a hell of a lot of points.
There you have it. A great way to end the show today. Guys, thank you very much for being with us.
All of you at home. Thanks for being with us as well.
But don't go anywhere. "THE LEAD" starts right now.
